Re: Action item - Part 2: SOAP request-response, response, request-optional-response ...
Mark Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/18/06, Rich Salz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Indeed, I'd say that the intermediary is responsible > > for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding can faithfully implment the MEP used > > by the first hop. > > I'm inclined to agree with this, I just don't know how the intermediary > knows the MEP. Short of making SOAP (or at least non-default MEPs) depend > on WSDL, then the messages themselves must be tagged, right? I don't agree. A SOAP/HTTP (as an example) node need only know the "MEP" insofar as it knows the semantics of HTTP and therefore the semantics of "request", "response", and their relationship on the wire. I think we sometimes forget that MEPs are simply tools to aid in the construction of bindings. Insofar as they've been used successfully to define bindings, they're useful. But they are not part of the contract between nodes, nor should they be IMO, because any attempt to make them so would certainly trump the semantics of any underlying application protocol. I believe the message should be king. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com